Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 189313
Summary: | Review Request: liblrdf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | lkundrak |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-05-14 03:32:29 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 189309 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 189315, 190040 |
Description
Anthony Green
2006-04-19 02:11:44 UTC
I've just updates the bits based on recent experience and expected feedback... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.src.rpm * Until raptor-devel will be good, this one BuildRequires: libxslt-devel * Run rpmlint on the binary rpms: Lots of output, in particular because the included "examples" %doc directory contains arch-dependent files (it MUST NOT), including unfinished libtool based executables in the hidden .libs directory, object files, and dependency meta data files in the hidden .deps directory. * rpmqfcheck.pl /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.i386.rpm Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa/rdf * Source0 would be directly downloadable if in the form: http://download.sourceforge.net/... or http://dl.sf.net/... * Static libraries should not be included. * Noticable compiler warnings: showdefaults.c:42: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int' setting_test.c:43: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int' lrdf.c:596: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness lrdf.c:597: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness Thanks for looking at this. Updated bits here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-4.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > * Until raptor-devel will be good, this one BuildRequires: libxslt-devel I've submitted a fixed raptor spec file. > * Run rpmlint on the binary rpms: > > Lots of output, in particular because the included "examples" %doc > directory contains arch-dependent files (it MUST NOT), including > unfinished libtool based executables in the hidden .libs directory, > object files, and dependency meta data files in the hidden .deps > directory. I've removed examples from the doc list, and added a README.fedora file to point people at the SRPM for example source code. > * rpmqfcheck.pl /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.i386.rpm > Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa > Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa/rdf I'm not sure who should own these directories. Perhaps this package should own /usr/share/ladspa/rdf, and ladspa could own /usr/share/ladspa - although there's no real need to install the ladspa package when using ladspa plugins. Suggestions? > * Source0 would be directly downloadable if in the form: > http://download.sourceforge.net/... > or > http://dl.sf.net/... Fixed. > * Static libraries should not be included. Fixed. Configured with --disable-static. > * Noticable compiler warnings: > > showdefaults.c:42: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has > type 'long unsigned int' > setting_test.c:43: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has > type 'long unsigned int' This is from the example directory, which is ignored now. > lrdf.c:596: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' > differ in signedness > lrdf.c:597: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' > differ in signedness I will push this upstream rather than try to handle it here. It's a signed-vs-unsigned char thing. I've cleaned up the spec file based raptor changes. Updated bits here... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-5.src.rpm > Perhaps this package should own
> /usr/share/ladspa/rdf, and ladspa could own /usr/share/ladspa
Common practice among packagers seems to be to _either_ require
a package which owns the directories _or_ to own the directories
yourself.
Here, however, the file is installed from within the "examples"
directory for rdf_uri load tests and is not required at run-time.
At build-time it is not adjusted to be in sync with the plugins
found in the "ladspa" package. In liblrdf there's also no run-time
dependency on the LADSPA_RDF_PATH /usr/share/ladspa/rdf
Confirming bottom of comment 5. /usr/share/ladspa/rdf/ladspa.rdfs is a useless example for a classification of ladspa plugins. Inside Hydrogen it is recognised without any of the classified ladspa plugins being available. The file should not be included in the package. (Do we have any ladspa package in the queue which comes with an rdf file?) APPROVED if you fix that remaining issue. (In reply to comment #6) > (Do we have any ladspa package in the queue which comes > with an rdf file?) swh-plugins does, and it's already in Extras. I've also submitted CAPS, which does as well. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 > APPROVED if you fix that remaining issue. Done. Thanks! I'd be very thiankful if you could request and maintain a EPEL-5 branch for this package. In case you don't want or can't do that, let me know and I'll do that. Thanks! Maintainer is OK with the change as per previous conversation with him. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: liblrdf New Branches: EL-5 Owners for new branch: green,lkundrak cvsextras commits for new branch: yes cvs done. |